The Teacher Rights Protection Unit to Support Son of Ju Ho-min..Specialized Guidance Officer Assigned [Star Issue]

*This content was translated by AI.

The Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education’s Teacher Rights Protection Unit has launched close support for a special education teacher who was indicted on charges of emotionally abusing Ju Ho-min’s son.

According to the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education on the 15th, the Teacher Rights Protection Unit, directly under the superintendent of education, recently classified the case involving special education teacher A as an “alleged child abuse” incident and decided to provide support for the teacher.

When a report of teacher rights infringement is received, the Teacher Rights Protection Unit categorizes it into one of three areas: alleged child abuse, interference with educational activities, or malicious complaints. It then reviews each case to determine whether direct support from the unit is necessary.

Following this procedure, the unit initially assigned one full-time Teacher Rights Protection Specialist, a guidance officer, to teacher A. This decision was reportedly made considering the seriousness of the case, which has persisted for several years in connection with teacher A.

To provide legal and counseling support, the unit plans to assign additional professional personnel, including lawyers, from among 300 Teacher Rights Protection Specialists selected through a public recruitment process, to offer one-on-one customized support for the teacher.

Teacher A was indicted on September 13, 2022, for making emotionally abusive remarks toward Ju Ho-min’s son (then 9 years old) in a special learning class at an elementary school in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province. The remarks included “Your behavior is extremely unpleasant,” “I hate it. I can’t stand it. I don’t like you. I don’t like you either. I really hate you.”

These remarks by teacher A were recorded on a recorder that Ju Ho-min’s wife had secretly placed in her son’s coat beforehand. Based on this recording, Ju Ho-min’s side reported the incident to the police on charges of child abuse, initiating an investigation.

In the subsequent trial, the Suwon District Court’s Criminal Division 9 (single judge) suspended a sentence of 2 million won for violations including the Special Act on Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes. The first instance court accepted the recording file as evidence. While it partially found teacher A guilty, it took into account that the overall remarks were intended for educational purposes. A suspended sentence means delaying the imposition of punishment for minor crimes; if two years pass from the suspension date, the conviction is effectively treated as non-existent.

However, the Suwon District Court’s 6th Criminal Appeals Division (Panel 2) overturned the original verdict and declared teacher A not guilty.

The second-instance court stated, “The mother of the victim child sent her child to school with a recorder that had its recording function turned on inside their clothing. The transcript of the conversation between the defendant and the victim child in the classroom during class time constitutes an ‘unrevealed conversation between others’ under the Act on Protection of Communications Secrets, and thus cannot be used as evidence.”

It further explained, “Although it is claimed that the victim child has autism spectrum disorder and that recording the conversation with the mother’s assistance was appropriate, the victim child and the mother are clearly separate individuals. The mother’s act of recording cannot be equated with the child’s act of recording. Since the recording was obtained in violation of the Act on Protection of Communications Secrets, it is difficult to recognize its admissibility as evidence. Although the content can be confirmed through the recording file and the indictment, establishing a causal relationship is challenging.” The court concluded, “Even considering all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is insufficient proof to affirm that the defendant made the stated remarks, and no credible evidence supports such a finding,” thereby explaining the not-guilty verdict.

The key issue in this trial was whether the recording file could be admitted as evidence. The second-instance court overturned the first-instance ruling by ruling that secretly recorded materials cannot be recognized as admissible evidence. Upon the declaration of not guilty for teacher A, some spectators in the courtroom cheered while others burst into tears. Outside the courthouse, heated exchanges occurred between teachers’ organizations and supporters of Ju Ho-min’s side.

Ju Ho-min and his wife also attended that trial. After the proceedings concluded, the couple stated, “We are heartbroken, but we respect the court’s decision.”

Subsequently, the Prosecution Service filed a petition for appeal against the second-instance verdict and is currently awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Meanwhile, shortly after the second-instance result, Ju Ho-min stated via his YouTube channel: “Today, there was a second-instance verdict on the emotional child abuse case involving our child. The second-instance court ruled not guilty, focusing more on the legal validity of evidence proving the abuse rather than addressing whether abuse occurred. Although this outcome differed from our expectations, we respect the court’s decision.”

Ju Ho-min continued, “I understand that the Prosecution Service is reviewing whether to file an appeal, and our family plans to quietly observe the process. We still have not found a way to prove the abuse of children with difficult-to-express disabilities, and our hearts remain heavy. For now, we intend to stay quietly by their side. Even if we temporarily step back, we will never forget the care and support you have shown. Our family will remember this kindness for a long time.”

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.